The measure seeks to define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, and would ban any other type of "domestic legal union" such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Although same-sex marriage is already illegal in the state, supporters say the amendment is necessary to prevent future legislatures or judges from changing the law.[1]

Supporters main argument for the amendment is that the issue is too important for the legislature or the courts to decide alone and that a vote on the matter is the fairest and most democratic solution.[2] Sen. Stam argues that the state is not prepared to handle situations in which married same-sex couples move from other states and seek legal rights, like getting divorced.[3] The response from religious leaders has been that the amendment is necessary to preserve the sanctity of marriage.[4]

Opponents

The measure is not without resistance, however, and in the general assembly, Representatives Larry Hall and Joe Hackney and Senator Kay Hagan oppose the measure. They are joined by the Coalition to Protect NC Families, Equality North Carolina, and the Human Rights Campaign.[5] Governor Beverly Perdue has voiced opposition to the measure, and on the national level, President Barack Obama has come out against the measure describing it as among the "divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples" he has long opposed.[6] In an open letter to state officials asking them to halt efforts to approve the proposed amendment over 75 North Carolina CEOs made their position known on September 12, 2011.[7]

Opponents primarily argue that the amendment with have far reaching negative consequences beyond banning same-sex marriage in the state, such as reducing the legal options available to people in domestic partnerships. Rep. Larry Hall argued that "Instead of creating an environment where we can create employment, attract entrepreneurs (and) attract talent, we're going to try to put a sign up to say, 'You are not welcome if you want to contribute to our society.'" Others argue that the issue is waste of time and should not be more important to the state than fixing the economy.